This will be interesting. I wonder if the Open Invention Network will retaliate.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/458939#458939
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:42:23 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/458939#458939Bass31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Bass/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against LinuxHow is this "going nuclear against Linux"? They're going after a profitable company for not licensing technology that isn't free, and TomTom is refusing to pay.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/57dad6094f3c444c8cb29deb00ce376c#57dad6094f3c444c8cb29deb00ce376c
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:38:47 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/57dad6094f3c444c8cb29deb00ce376c#57dad6094f3c444c8cb29deb00ce376cwarren31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/warren/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

warren said:

How is this "going nuclear against Linux"? They're going after a profitable company for not licensing technology that isn't free, and TomTom is refusing to pay.

Well specifically the FAT32 patents. They are going against a company not just for it's own technology, but for using a technology that is freely available in Linux.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/43f8fbc3499346908a329deb00ce37da#43f8fbc3499346908a329deb00ce37da
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:47:28 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/43f8fbc3499346908a329deb00ce37da#43f8fbc3499346908a329deb00ce37daBass31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Bass/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

Bass said:

warren said:

*snip*

Well specifically the FAT32 patents. They are going against a company not just for it's own technology, but for using a technology that is freely available in Linux.

I reckon the FAT32 one was thrown in for the sake of it, you'll notice there were other patents they were filing against. Microsoft hasn't previously sued over FAT or FAT32 (IIRC) but the commentators on slashdot think that's because it's likely the
FAT patents wouldn't stand scrutiny.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/eaa25b124a9c42eea76d9deb00ce384d#eaa25b124a9c42eea76d9deb00ce384d
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:50:06 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/eaa25b124a9c42eea76d9deb00ce384d#eaa25b124a9c42eea76d9deb00ce384dW3bbo31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/W3bbo/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

W3bbo said:

Bass said:

*snip*

I reckon the FAT32 one was thrown in for the sake of it, you'll notice there were other patents they were filing against. Microsoft hasn't previously sued over FAT or FAT32 (IIRC) but the commentators on slashdot think that's because it's likely the FAT patents
wouldn't stand scrutiny.

Yeah it looks like the bulk of the patents have to do with GPS, but just throwing the FAT32 patent in there is kind of strange.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/c532909220df4632a6789deb00ce38b9#c532909220df4632a6789deb00ce38b9
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:22:40 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/c532909220df4632a6789deb00ce38b9#c532909220df4632a6789deb00ce38b9Bass31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Bass/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

Bass said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

Yeah it looks like the bulk of the patents have to do with GPS, but just throwing the FAT32 patent in there is kind of strange.

I guess every little bit helps ...

]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/2558da06e6194a25a1719deb00ce3929#2558da06e6194a25a1719deb00ce3929
Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:35:56 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/2558da06e6194a25a1719deb00ce3929#2558da06e6194a25a1719deb00ce3929Ray731http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Ray7/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against LinuxThis is sooooooo not Microsoft v Open Source it's laughable ! People are *****desperately***** trying to turn this into this battle but Microsoft are at pains to say it's not.

Microsoft makes money and registers IP's to protect revenue.

TomTom makes money and registers IP's to protect revenue.

So I see this as two companies that disagree on patents and I'm sure there are plenty more companies doing the same thing all over the world from biology, chemistry, engineering to weaponary.

If you have a good idea you would want to be the person that benefits from it. No point in being a brilliant inventor and not being able to feed your family or pay your morgage.

So give some stuff away, don't be greedy, I get that ... but at least have the courtesy to acknowledge rather than take the whole idea as their own .... and sell it! ... which is what happen to my Open Source code, thats why I don't trust Open Source any more.
It's for suckers. This is why there is a patent system and when IT matures it will get it why it needs this system too.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/6f303dd55fbb48f8926d9deb00ce399b#6f303dd55fbb48f8926d9deb00ce399b
Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:10:52 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/6f303dd55fbb48f8926d9deb00ce399b#6f303dd55fbb48f8926d9deb00ce399bDavid Oliver31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Sabot/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

Sabot said:

This is sooooooo not Microsoft v Open Source it's laughable ! People are *****desperately***** trying to turn this into this battle but Microsoft are at pains to say it's not.

Microsoft makes money and registers IP's to protect revenue.

TomTom makes money and registers IP's to protect revenue.

So I see this as two companies that disagree on patents and I'm sure there are plenty more companies doing the same thing all over the world from biology, chemistry, engineering to weaponary.

If you have a good idea you would want to be the person that benefits from it. No point in being a brilliant inventor and not being able to feed your family or pay your morgage.

So give some stuff away, don't be greedy, I get that ... but at least have the courtesy to acknowledge rather than take the whole idea as their own .... and sell it! ... which is what happen to my Open Source code, thats why I don't trust Open Source any more.
It's for suckers. This is why there is a patent system and when IT matures it will get it why it needs this system too.

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." -Bill Gates

The issue I have is with software patents. Software patents make it difficult to write software in general, because there is no guarantee what you are writing is violating some other persons patent. And software patents tend to be sufficiently broad it makes
writing any kind of software very easily illegal.

The patents most people are concerned about in this case are the FAT32 patents. It's very clear FAT32 wasn't the work of a "brilliant inventor". TomTom isn't using it because it's a great and amazing technology. TomTom is using FAT32 because between it and
NTFS (also patented), it's the only filesystems Windows can read.

Fact of the matter is, it's damn near impossible to inter-operate or write software that works on Windows without violating Microsoft's IP. Anytime you interface with the OS you are likely using some kind of "patented" interface to do it.

So if you support this kind of thing, basically you want a world where you have to get permission everytime you write something that runs on Windows or everytime you make a device that Windows can detect and use. That could give Microsoft significant control
of the entire hardware and software industry, and they can do stuff like prohibit competitive products from ever working with Windows. I don't want this personally.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/4d52c00fbf874442a2339deb00ce3a1c#4d52c00fbf874442a2339deb00ce3a1c
Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:55:26 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/4d52c00fbf874442a2339deb00ce3a1c#4d52c00fbf874442a2339deb00ce3a1cBass31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Bass/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linuxlets see how Newsday.com does (charging for content)http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE51P71W20090226

The simple fact is - people are broke, social netowrking = talk about news and stuff / blog... if "reputable sourses" decide to charge - other new one will take their place ... etc and onward

it is like the music bus (riaa/pirate bay)
and the software biz (bsa / linux free)

google has the right model - free to us - charge companies.
*as for linux - im sure many hope a utopian OS somehow - one day comes of it - for free.
Everyone building it together. March! (2,3,4)

(patents are about trying to control the uncontrolable. you cant download a couch. you cant watch eating (=you ineviably buy food)

its all about bundling with devices (something ms is king at) .. but the software part is getting chisled out...
so chisle them out!.. build your own XBOX, XBOX PC and XPhone. ..all running Windows.com

** it is time to cut everyone out but ms - screw the pc industry - and release your own line
(back to reaming companies instead of consumers! woo hoo! )

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." -Bill Gates

The issue I have is with software patents. Software patents make it difficult to write software in general, because there is no guarantee what you are writing is violating some other persons patent. And software patents tend to be sufficiently broad it makes
writing any kind of software very easily illegal.

The patents most people are concerned about in this case are the FAT32 patents. It's very clear FAT32 wasn't the work of a "brilliant inventor". TomTom isn't using it because it's a great and amazing technology. TomTom is using FAT32 because between it and
NTFS (also patented), it's the only filesystems Windows can read.

Fact of the matter is, it's damn near impossible to inter-operate or write software that works on Windows without violating Microsoft's IP. Anytime you interface with the OS you are likely using some kind of "patented" interface to do it.

So if you support this kind of thing, basically you want a world where you have to get permission everytime you write something that runs on Windows or everytime you make a device that Windows can detect and use. That could give Microsoft significant control
of the entire hardware and software industry, and they can do stuff like prohibit competitive products from ever working with Windows. I don't want this personally.

Why is software so hard to patent?

Similar fights over patents where faced with photography and music in times past and some are still going on today. However with code it's abit more scientific to prove unlike a picture or a sound. If you don't wish to patent your code crack on, no problem,
but respect the people that have chosen too to protect their revenue.

Jamie, I don't think we can rely on the fact the Google software will stay free, the T&C point to a future where we are gonna pay and as advertising is the first thing that gets cut in a downturn Google potientially isn't going to have so much cash.

Similar fights over patents where faced with photography and music in times past and some are still going on today. However with code it's abit more scientific to prove unlike a picture or a sound. If you don't wish to patent your code crack on, no problem,
but respect the people that have chosen too to protect their revenue.

Jamie, I don't think we can rely on the fact the Google software will stay free, the T&C point to a future where we are gonna pay and as advertising is the first thing that gets cut in a downturn Google potientially isn't going to have so much cash.

Software should be under by copyright, not patents. Usually you can put something under one or the other. For example, you can't copyright an idea, only patent it.

Patents are bad for software because they make the act of writing software illegal. Yes, WRITING software can be illegal. From scratch. Not copying software. Simply writing it. Like you just made a simple application? Good luck "making money". Did you get a
lawyer to do a patent search for you? No? You probably just broke the law. Yes, with software patents the only real way to stay legal is to have a lawyer look over your code every release, and do an extensive (and very costly) patent search. Wow! That sounds
really efficient. Do you already do this with your software? No? How do you know YOU aren't violating patents?

That's what Bill Gates ment when he spoke against software patents. If software patents are allowed to continue without restriction, it's quite likely writing any kind of software will very hard to be legal. People have put out patents on stuff like specific
HTML tags or something as simple as the generic string datatype. If you use strings in an software application and there is a patent for that, you could be sued! You might lose the ability to sell your software? Is that really fair?

And really you protect your revenue by having a better product, not relying on the government to make sure you'll never have any competition. That's actually the purpose of both copyright and patents. To increase innovation, to promote science and the arts.
It's not there their to protect business models and crush competition. And NOT suppose to hinder innovation (which is what software patents tend to do).]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/053474a130f3444581cc9deb00ce3b4c#053474a130f3444581cc9deb00ce3b4c
Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:32:04 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/053474a130f3444581cc9deb00ce3b4c#053474a130f3444581cc9deb00ce3b4cBass31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Bass/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

Bass said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

Software should be under by copyright, not patents. Usually you can put something under one or the other. For example, you can't copyright an idea, only patent it.

Patents are bad for software because they make the act of writing software illegal. Yes, WRITING software can be illegal. From scratch. Not copying software. Simply writing it. Like you just made a simple application? Good luck "making money". Did you get a
lawyer to do a patent search for you? No? You probably just broke the law. Yes, with software patents the only real way to stay legal is to have a lawyer look over your code every release, and do an extensive (and very costly) patent search. Wow! That sounds
really efficient. Do you already do this with your software? No? How do you know YOU aren't violating patents?

That's what Bill Gates ment when he spoke against software patents. If software patents are allowed to continue without restriction, it's quite likely writing any kind of software will very hard to be legal. People have put out patents on stuff like specific
HTML tags or something as simple as the generic string datatype. If you use strings in an software application and there is a patent for that, you could be sued! You might lose the ability to sell your software? Is that really fair?

And really you protect your revenue by having a better product, not relying on the government to make sure you'll never have any competition. That's actually the purpose of both copyright and patents. To increase innovation, to promote science and the arts.
It's not there their to protect business models and crush competition. And NOT suppose to hinder innovation (which is what software patents tend to do).

For your first claim, I'll argue that in most places, including the US and UK, patent infringement is a civil case, not a criminal case. I feel the cry of "Wrote software? It's illegal!" is a bit alarmist and sensationalistic.

As for your last paragraph - I agree that software patents as used today are a legalistic exercise in money-grabbing and fearmongering that do not serve their original purpose. But you have to remember that they do have an original purpose - allowing inventors
to benefit from their invention. If they didn't exist, any product I released could be reverse-engineered within hours and competition thrive without having to spend the R&D time I did. Not only that, but big companies could spend that R&D budget on marketing
and overtake my business by a mile.

I'm not trying to defend the current practices, but just to avoid the kneejerk "All patents are evil!" reaction. The "you'll succeed if you just have a good enough product" line works only in Horatio Alger stories, not in the marketplace where PR can make
or break a product.

For your first claim, I'll argue that in most places, including the US and UK, patent infringement is a civil case, not a criminal case. I feel the cry of "Wrote software? It's illegal!" is a bit alarmist and sensationalistic.

As for your last paragraph - I agree that software patents as used today are a legalistic exercise in money-grabbing and fearmongering that do not serve their original purpose. But you have to remember that they do have an original purpose - allowing inventors
to benefit from their invention. If they didn't exist, any product I released could be reverse-engineered within hours and competition thrive without having to spend the R&D time I did. Not only that, but big companies could spend that R&D budget on marketing
and overtake my business by a mile.

I'm not trying to defend the current practices, but just to avoid the kneejerk "All patents are evil!" reaction. The "you'll succeed if you just have a good enough product" line works only in Horatio Alger stories, not in the marketplace where PR can make
or break a product.

I agree with what you said but I want to make it clear that I am talking about
software patents. I don't have problems with patents in general, as long is they follow the original guidelines (ie, they must be detailed and well written enough so that some one competent in the subject can understand and reproduce the invention
in question). Software is already established under copyright.

It's not alarmist at all by the way. I hope you realize that Microsoft themselves loses billions of dollars from what amounts to frivolous patent lawsuits. At one point they had to cripple IE for one of the patents. A patent if broad enough (and there is no
legal limit to what is considered "broad", only "obvious") it a lawsuit could be enough to ban the sales of Windows or any software, until it no longer violates the patent. Plus billions of dollars in fines can be issued. This is not being alarmist at all,
this is being realistic. All I am saying is how it is. I am not a moralist or an idealist. This is stuff that could directly affect me and probably anyone else who works with software.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/a121fbcaae2d4846afde9deb00ce3c3d#a121fbcaae2d4846afde9deb00ce3c3d
Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:42:07 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/a121fbcaae2d4846afde9deb00ce3c3d#a121fbcaae2d4846afde9deb00ce3c3dBass31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Bass/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

Bass said:

Yggdrasil said:

*snip*

I agree with what you said but I want to make it clear that I am talking about
software patents. I don't have problems with patents in general, as long is they follow the original guidelines (ie, they must be detailed and well written enough so that some one competent in the subject can understand and reproduce the invention
in question). Software is already established under copyright.

It's not alarmist at all by the way. I hope you realize that Microsoft themselves loses billions of dollars from what amounts to frivolous patent lawsuits. At one point they had to cripple IE for one of the patents. A patent if broad enough (and there is no
legal limit to what is considered "broad", only "obvious") it a lawsuit could be enough to ban the sales of Windows or any software, until it no longer violates the patent. Plus billions of dollars in fines can be issued. This is not being alarmist at all,
this is being realistic. All I am saying is how it is. I am not a moralist or an idealist. This is stuff that could directly affect me and probably anyone else who works with software.

Ok, if you write a bit of code differently from Microsoft and come up with a result that is the same that's not patent infringement, Microsoft have a department to work with companies that are in this situation, they have coughed up millions (if not
billions by now) of dollars to companies where they weren't the first to patent.

Some people out there have made allot of money out of Microsoft, I actually do know one guy that has retired because he 'sold his company' to Microsoft so they could have his code (he had to register a company first for Microsoft to buy)

If you want to use a piece of code that Microsoft has already patented but can't afford it, again, they are happy to cut a deal. In one case I read that Microsoft could clearly see the advantage to them of a good interoperability story, they let the fee slide.

However, FAT32, you can't argue that you wrote a bit of code and it came out exactly the same as FAT32. Gee-whizz! How did that happen?!

Then if the owner of that patent finds out and gives the person an opportunity to sort it out and tries to get in contact but gets stone-walled ... and this goes on for a YEAR ... this is clearly taking the mick! What recourse do you have over than to go legal?

TomTom aren't a small company, they clearly sell stuff for profit, they charge £30 for a data-file that tells you where the 'safety-camera's' are, however this file is offered free by almost everyone else, infact the Transport Agency recommends that this informatinon
is 'easily accessible' ... but still TomTom charge.

So looking at the facts here I would advise that the Open Source posse would be better advised to pick on a story that better serves their cause!

I have nothing against Open Source ... I have even written years worth of code back in the days when I was a true believer ... just now I believe it has a place ... not the place.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/879206b7ae8743ac86549deb00ce3cbc#879206b7ae8743ac86549deb00ce3cbc
Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:18:48 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/879206b7ae8743ac86549deb00ce3cbc#879206b7ae8743ac86549deb00ce3cbcDavid Oliver31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Sabot/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

Bass said:

Yggdrasil said:

*snip*

I agree with what you said but I want to make it clear that I am talking about
software patents. I don't have problems with patents in general, as long is they follow the original guidelines (ie, they must be detailed and well written enough so that some one competent in the subject can understand and reproduce the invention
in question). Software is already established under copyright.

It's not alarmist at all by the way. I hope you realize that Microsoft themselves loses billions of dollars from what amounts to frivolous patent lawsuits. At one point they had to cripple IE for one of the patents. A patent if broad enough (and there is no
legal limit to what is considered "broad", only "obvious") it a lawsuit could be enough to ban the sales of Windows or any software, until it no longer violates the patent. Plus billions of dollars in fines can be issued. This is not being alarmist at all,
this is being realistic. All I am saying is how it is. I am not a moralist or an idealist. This is stuff that could directly affect me and probably anyone else who works with software.

I don't see how software patents differe from other patents here? Sure, they have their own complexity, but the essence - protecting innovators and allowing them to profit from their inventions - is the same. If anything, the ease of reverse-engineering
and copying is much greater with software, since a company wanting to steal a product and rerelease it doesn't even need manufacturing facilities like a hardware patent does. This isn't a matter of relying on government intervention instead of making a better
product, but a case where the market forces are skewed in favor of the late-comer and the plagiarist.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/0c133eeaa7fa4d868cdb9deb00ce3d3d#0c133eeaa7fa4d868cdb9deb00ce3d3d
Mon, 02 Mar 2009 09:12:33 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/0c133eeaa7fa4d868cdb9deb00ce3d3d#0c133eeaa7fa4d868cdb9deb00ce3d3dYggdrasil31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Yggdrasil/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

Sabot said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Ok, if you write a bit of code differently from Microsoft and come up with a result that is the same that's not patent infringement, Microsoft have a department to work with companies that are in this situation, they have coughed up millions (if not billions
by now) of dollars to companies where they weren't the first to patent.

Some people out there have made allot of money out of Microsoft, I actually do know one guy that has retired because he 'sold his company' to Microsoft so they could have his code (he had to register a company first for Microsoft to buy)

If you want to use a piece of code that Microsoft has already patented but can't afford it, again, they are happy to cut a deal. In one case I read that Microsoft could clearly see the advantage to them of a good interoperability story, they let the fee slide.

However, FAT32, you can't argue that you wrote a bit of code and it came out exactly the same as FAT32. Gee-whizz! How did that happen?!

Then if the owner of that patent finds out and gives the person an opportunity to sort it out and tries to get in contact but gets stone-walled ... and this goes on for a YEAR ... this is clearly taking the mick! What recourse do you have over than to go legal?

TomTom aren't a small company, they clearly sell stuff for profit, they charge £30 for a data-file that tells you where the 'safety-camera's' are, however this file is offered free by almost everyone else, infact the Transport Agency recommends that this informatinon
is 'easily accessible' ... but still TomTom charge.

So looking at the facts here I would advise that the Open Source posse would be better advised to pick on a story that better serves their cause!

I have nothing against Open Source ... I have even written years worth of code back in the days when I was a true believer ... just now I believe it has a place ... not the place.

Well said.

If it were Microsoft infringing on someone else's patents, then I'm pretty sure that the same people would be making the same argument against them.

Ok, if you write a bit of code differently from Microsoft and come up with a result that is the same that's not patent infringement, Microsoft have a department to work with companies that are in this situation, they have coughed up millions (if not billions
by now) of dollars to companies where they weren't the first to patent.

Some people out there have made allot of money out of Microsoft, I actually do know one guy that has retired because he 'sold his company' to Microsoft so they could have his code (he had to register a company first for Microsoft to buy)

If you want to use a piece of code that Microsoft has already patented but can't afford it, again, they are happy to cut a deal. In one case I read that Microsoft could clearly see the advantage to them of a good interoperability story, they let the fee slide.

However, FAT32, you can't argue that you wrote a bit of code and it came out exactly the same as FAT32. Gee-whizz! How did that happen?!

Then if the owner of that patent finds out and gives the person an opportunity to sort it out and tries to get in contact but gets stone-walled ... and this goes on for a YEAR ... this is clearly taking the mick! What recourse do you have over than to go legal?

TomTom aren't a small company, they clearly sell stuff for profit, they charge £30 for a data-file that tells you where the 'safety-camera's' are, however this file is offered free by almost everyone else, infact the Transport Agency recommends that this informatinon
is 'easily accessible' ... but still TomTom charge.

So looking at the facts here I would advise that the Open Source posse would be better advised to pick on a story that better serves their cause!

I have nothing against Open Source ... I have even written years worth of code back in the days when I was a true believer ... just now I believe it has a place ... not the place.

Well whatever, this is the first time I have ever met people who support
software patents. I'm sticking with the Bill Gates opinion on the matter.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/4ef58cbd0bf14440b2869deb00ce3e2a#4ef58cbd0bf14440b2869deb00ce3e2a
Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:50:10 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/4ef58cbd0bf14440b2869deb00ce3e2a#4ef58cbd0bf14440b2869deb00ce3e2aBass31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Bass/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

Bass said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

Well whatever, this is the first time I have ever met people who support software patents. I'm sticking with the Bill Gates opinion on the matter.

Bass it is a little disrespectful just giving us the 'whatever' because we don't agree with you.

The Open Source community has been very vocal in recent years, it doesn't mean however they are the majority. Please understand that software developers come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, motivations, backgrounds, challenges ... and preferences. This
means that one size cannot fit all.

There is enough room for Open and Closed source communities, we just have to work out a way that we can both get on with each other and benefit from each other to make the whole the development world easier because companies that make money from code aren't
going away anytime soon and nor are companies that are happy to give it away but make their money another way ... and companies that do both.

Just like we aim for interoperability between platforms, we should also aim to being interoperable in our communities. As basically, in these financially strap days we shouldn't decry anyone that wishes to make a buck as long as it's legal, decent and
honest ... and fair.

Bass it is a little disrespectful just giving us the 'whatever' because we don't agree with you.

The Open Source community has been very vocal in recent years, it doesn't mean however they are the majority. Please understand that software developers come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, motivations, backgrounds, challenges ... and preferences. This
means that one size cannot fit all.

There is enough room for Open and Closed source communities, we just have to work out a way that we can both get on with each other and benefit from each other to make the whole the development world easier because companies that make money from code aren't
going away anytime soon and nor are companies that are happy to give it away but make their money another way ... and companies that do both.

Just like we aim for interoperability between platforms, we should also aim to being interoperable in our communities. As basically, in these financially strap days we shouldn't decry anyone that wishes to make a buck as long as it's legal, decent and
honest ... and fair.

I don't think Bass needs to attach a complete list of egregious hostilities perpetrated through patents to be able to credibly whatever you. Opposition to software patents is not unique to open source communities. Patents are not "just another way
of doing it." If that were the case they would be used to cover a single implementation of an idea, like copyright does, without disturbing the guy down the road doing his own thing.

You can't put the "live and let live" spin on sth that itself does not live and let live.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/76ac0bcaa25345c982549deb00ce3f18#76ac0bcaa25345c982549deb00ce3f18
Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:50:35 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/76ac0bcaa25345c982549deb00ce3f18#76ac0bcaa25345c982549deb00ce3f18k2t0f12d31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/k2t0f12d/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

k2t0f12d said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

I don't think Bass needs to attach a complete list of egregious hostilities perpetrated through patents to be able to credibly whatever you. Opposition to software patents is not unique to open source communities. Patents are not "just another way of doing
it." If that were the case they would be used to cover a single implementation of an idea, like copyright does, without disturbing the guy down the road doing his own thing.

You can't put the "live and let live" spin on sth that itself does not live and let live.

Yes, who I'm I kidding! It's my Bob Dillon side coming out. (Love Bob by the way ... and Metalica!)

Applications using both Open and Closed source are being written together everyday from the simple Open Source media player using the DirectX interface, to the Closed source Lotus Symphony built on Open Source Open Office (yes Lotus is 'free', but you have
to pay for a support CAL, starting at 2000 heads meaning you need to have an ESSO agreement first, E meaning Enterprise, meaning lots of money to begin with before the 'free' sweetie, ooh they can see us coming)

These are just two examples out of a million more.

The real truth is let’s forget about being nice to each other, or not, frankly I couldn’t care less because it's all academic now because only a few of us actually give a stuff.

Yes, who I'm I kidding! It's my Bob Dillon side coming out. (Love Bob by the way ... and Metalica!)

Applications using both Open and Closed source are being written together everyday from the simple Open Source media player using the DirectX interface, to the Closed source Lotus Symphony built on Open Source Open Office (yes Lotus is 'free', but you have
to pay for a support CAL, starting at 2000 heads meaning you need to have an ESSO agreement first, E meaning Enterprise, meaning lots of money to begin with before the 'free' sweetie, ooh they can see us coming)

These are just two examples out of a million more.

The real truth is let’s forget about being nice to each other, or not, frankly I couldn’t care less because it's all academic now because only a few of us actually give a stuff.

Software Copyrights are an exercise in futility, just like the GPL.

So are you saying that software patents actually force mixed source projects where unique and separate implementation could have otherwise been created because one developer had been
given statutory power to put Damocles' sword over any other person's work?]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/8561164b6e9340bfb6209deb00ce4008#8561164b6e9340bfb6209deb00ce4008
Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:39:06 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/8561164b6e9340bfb6209deb00ce4008#8561164b6e9340bfb6209deb00ce4008k2t0f12d31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/k2t0f12d/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

k2t0f12d said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

So are you saying that software patents actually force mixed source projects where unique and separate implementation could have otherwise been created because one developer had been given statutory power to put Damocles' sword over any other person's work?

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with software patents, per se, the problem lies in the fact that the whole patent system has been abused to a ridiculous level with no signs of improving. Software patents just expose this because they've been
granted on even more tenuous grounds than anywhere else (see the IsNot patent for proof).

The patent system, particularly in the US, needs a complete overhaul to cleanse itself of stupid or incredibly vague patents. Only then can it do what it was originally supposed to do, protect genuinely new inventions and encourage innovation in the market.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/e2f5f497c6014a8a84ea9deb00ce407a#e2f5f497c6014a8a84ea9deb00ce407a
Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:25:52 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/e2f5f497c6014a8a84ea9deb00ce407a#e2f5f497c6014a8a84ea9deb00ce407aAndyC31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/AndyC/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

AndyC said:

k2t0f12d said:

*snip*

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with software patents, per se, the problem lies in the fact that the whole patent system has been abused to a ridiculous level with no signs of improving. Software patents just expose this because they've been granted
on even more tenuous grounds than anywhere else (see the IsNot patent for proof).

The patent system, particularly in the US, needs a complete overhaul to cleanse itself of stupid or incredibly vague patents. Only then can it do what it was originally supposed to do, protect genuinely new inventions and encourage innovation in the market.

I
don't necessarily agree that patents in any field are even necessary, but do agree on how incredibly badly they have been used with regards to software. Pointing at the on-topic discussion, I didn't likewise agree with Sabot that software patents are beneficial
to promulgating cooperation between proprietary and free software projects. I think there is some collaboration that occurs as the natural result of parallel projects seeking mutual benefit and some that occurs because one or both parties use statutory law
to prevent the other from pursuing development. Software patents (vague or specific) do not aid mutually beneficial collaborations and actually prevent parallel developers from racing their own unique implementations against each other. If such competition
were given to fruition, I think we would have invention that would make the so-called incentive of the patent system laughable.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/20ccaeaf815b4d8cbff19deb00ce40e9#20ccaeaf815b4d8cbff19deb00ce40e9
Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:55:35 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/20ccaeaf815b4d8cbff19deb00ce40e9#20ccaeaf815b4d8cbff19deb00ce40e9k2t0f12d31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/k2t0f12d/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

Sabot said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Bass it is a little disrespectful just giving us the 'whatever' because we don't agree with you.

The Open Source community has been very vocal in recent years, it doesn't mean however they are the majority. Please understand that software developers come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, motivations, backgrounds, challenges ... and preferences. This
means that one size cannot fit all.

There is enough room for Open and Closed source communities, we just have to work out a way that we can both get on with each other and benefit from each other to make the whole the development world easier because companies that make money from code aren't
going away anytime soon and nor are companies that are happy to give it away but make their money another way ... and companies that do both.

Just like we aim for interoperability between platforms, we should also aim to being interoperable in our communities. As basically, in these financially strap days we shouldn't decry anyone that wishes to make a buck as long as it's legal, decent and
honest ... and fair.

I don't know why you keep making this to an open source versus close source thing. Bill Gates, the founder of the BIGGEST proprietary software company in the world has spoken out against software patents. Do you really think Bill Gates is an open source
fan?

Software patents hurt software. It hurts closed source software. It hurts open source software. It might even hurt closed source software more then open source, if you look at history and by the companies most hurt by software patents. So stop bringing your
ideology about open source into it. It has nothing to do with the issue. Software patents make all forms of software riskier to write. And if you make software development a legally challenging practice, less software will get written. Less software means
less jobs and our industry will suffer in the end.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/6877be7686774db2920b9deb00ce4165#6877be7686774db2920b9deb00ce4165
Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:03:02 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/6877be7686774db2920b9deb00ce4165#6877be7686774db2920b9deb00ce4165Bass31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Bass/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against LinuxHello Mr Software

How are you today?

I'm just fine and dandy Mr

So can you tell me whether you are Open, Closed or a mixture of Both?

Doh, well I don't rightly know Mr ! The developer just put me together from bit's he found laying around from the OS to the big ol' Internet. He just wanted to solve his immediate problem anyway he could.

What about legal boundaries?

Well the developer didn't know about any of that the code, component, class, Cloud service, java-script <insert variant here> was there so was used. It's not like the I'm going to be sold, like most pieces of software I
won't see the light of day much out-side of this company.

So are you safe?

Well the testing guys tested me real good using STRIDE models, load testing and white/black box etc and if they found a problem well the developer just custed allot and went and fixed it, then broke somewhere else which the
testers may find.

So do you think it would have helped if lot so developers look at your code?

Well yeah sure but it's not what I look like on the inside it's whether I meet requirement and the customers think I work is what it's really all about.

So in the future are there going to be so many people writting code like you?

Most code these days isn't really that much more re-usable and even if it was it has a short life span till the runtime is out of support or versions behind and stuff isn't really forward or backward compatible. This all
means little because the industry hasn't got it's head around SOA which is the only real proven practice that will give sustained re-use and business agility, which is what it's
all really about.

So until the house is in order, no chance of anyone losing their jobs unless the company gets fed up with waiting for code and loses confidence that developers will actually deliver anything other than moaning and out-source
out of frustration, may as well save some costs somewhere if it's going to be the same-old-same-old as well let someone else take the responsibility and get the kicking.

Doh, well I don't rightly know Mr ! The developer just put me together from bit's he found laying around from the OS to the big ol' Internet. He just wanted to solve his immediate problem anyway he could.

What about legal boundaries?

Well the developer didn't know about any of that the code, component, class, Cloud service, java-script <insert variant here> was there so was used. It's not like the I'm going to be sold, like most pieces of software I
won't see the light of day much out-side of this company.

So are you safe?

Well the testing guys tested me real good using STRIDE models, load testing and white/black box etc and if they found a problem well the developer just custed allot and went and fixed it, then broke somewhere else which the
testers may find.

So do you think it would have helped if lot so developers look at your code?

Well yeah sure but it's not what I look like on the inside it's whether I meet requirement and the customers think I work is what it's really all about.

So in the future are there going to be so many people writting code like you?

Most code these days isn't really that much more re-usable and even if it was it has a short life span till the runtime is out of support or versions behind and stuff isn't really forward or backward compatible. This all
means little because the industry hasn't got it's head around SOA which is the only real proven practice that will give sustained re-use and business agility, which is what it's
all really about.

So until the house is in order, no chance of anyone losing their jobs unless the company gets fed up with waiting for code and loses confidence that developers will actually deliver anything other than moaning and out-source
out of frustration, may as well save some costs somewhere if it's going to be the same-old-same-old as well let someone else take the responsibility and get the kicking.

I don't see how software patents differe from other patents here? Sure, they have their own complexity, but the essence - protecting innovators and allowing them to profit from their inventions - is the same. If anything, the ease of reverse-engineering and
copying is much greater with software, since a company wanting to steal a product and rerelease it doesn't even need manufacturing facilities like a hardware patent does. This isn't a matter of relying on government intervention instead of making a better
product, but a case where the market forces are skewed in favor of the late-comer and the plagiarist.

I think the problem most people have is not that software patents are bad (well some do hold this view) but that a lot of patents granted today are
for completely obvious things or for things for which there is already an application using it. This seems to be especially true with software patents, where companies are routinely granted patents for completely ridiculous reasons and just sit around sueing
anyone who actually tries to innovate.]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/b27d49cda1b6466b9b219deb00ce4297#b27d49cda1b6466b9b219deb00ce4297
Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:28:01 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/b27d49cda1b6466b9b219deb00ce4297#b27d49cda1b6466b9b219deb00ce4297Gordon Freeman31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/matthews/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against LinuxMicrosoft will learn that fighting Linux is so futile. We have means with which to protect ourselves from patent scroungers like Microsoft. This isnt about GPS patents, its about GNU/Linux. If TomTom was using Windows CE they wouldnt have been sued, thats
point blank.

Not everything is rosey for Microsoft though, their GNU/Linux wooden horse PC/OS has dropped in the distrowatch rankings. Microsofts stock price just keeps faling and falling. What do Starbucks and Microsoft in common? They wont be around this time next
year. The Linux community will rise from the ashes like a phoenix and will make Microsoft obsolete.

Essentially Developers aren't really interest if it's not code related, subjects of law and money do not interest them and are uncomfortable when exposed to subjects outside their remit. Why? Because code has it's own natural laws and these are the only
ones that are logically relivant.

The concept of Intellectual Property is somewhat alien to developers, how can you patent an idea? Well you can if you can prove you had it first. The famous line is "the labours of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat
he cultivates, or the flocks he rears". This is actually difficult to apply to code because code it's not tangible and becomes better after review and revision.

These two points are the very essense of the Open Source movement and developers are not the only ones that suffer at the hands of the Intellectual Property Patent debate, Mathmeticians have the exact same problem. Can you imagine if Einstein patented
E=mc2?

The point I want to make is - most of the software industry is oblivious to patenting software, however this is not true in the commercialsector because code is exposed to a wider more knowledgeable audience.

As most developers are oblivious they actually don't care whether source is 'Open' or 'Closed'.

They only care when something has made their life harder, like raising a justifcation case for a software purchase ... up until then code came from PlanetSourceCode. Suddenly when something is illogical it's a ball-ache and must be stopped.

Microsoft's Bill Gates was quoted many time saying the 'right thing' i.e. 'legal' thing, 'keep share-holder happy' thing, 'look I have an opinion' thing, 'Geez I'm a thought leader' thing. When he didn't work out whether it was the 'Smart Thing' to say.

Just like Sir Freddy Goodwin, Bill became the focus of attention for what is generally a bad situation. He became a focal point to direct the hate at. At last there is an enemy! ... and a good story isn't a good story without a bunch of heros and villans.

The simple fact is that other companies like IBM & Oracle who are arguably just as big realised that Bill had shot himself, and his company, in the foot ... and stoked the fire to get some more market share using the Open Source movement and Linux as patsies.
Up until then Oracle and IBM did not have any core products as Open Source ... and you can argue that this is still the case.

Forward-wind to present day and Microsoft is making friends in Open Source and the Linux communities, striking deals and giving money away as well as code. Not repairing the damage but not so much the bad guy after all.

So what I don't get is ... why don't you fire your guns at Oracle or IBM????? ... because their stuff runs on Linux? Oracle's main OS is Oracle Enterprise Linux and Windows, so not bad .... but IBM's main OS is still AIX or zOS !!! Stuff is ported to Linux!

I think that Microsoft is upfront about where it stands. I'm not sure the same can be said elsewhere.

The point I want to make is - life is more complex than heros and villians.

**********************************************

Anyway, here endith the lesson from old man Sabot. This thread has turned into topics best discussed over beer, so when your next in the London, UK, ping me and you can come out with my Open and Closed source loving friends and enjoy the debate over Kingfisher
and Curry. So I'm done with this thread.

Essentially Developers aren't really interest if it's not code related, subjects of law and money do not interest them and are uncomfortable when exposed to subjects outside their remit. Why? Because code has it's own natural laws and these are the only
ones that are logically relivant.

The concept of Intellectual Property is somewhat alien to developers, how can you patent an idea? Well you can if you can prove you had it first. The famous line is "the labours of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat
he cultivates, or the flocks he rears". This is actually difficult to apply to code because code it's not tangible and becomes better after review and revision.

These two points are the very essense of the Open Source movement and developers are not the only ones that suffer at the hands of the Intellectual Property Patent debate, Mathmeticians have the exact same problem. Can you imagine if Einstein patented
E=mc2?

The point I want to make is - most of the software industry is oblivious to patenting software, however this is not true in the commercialsector because code is exposed to a wider more knowledgeable audience.

As most developers are oblivious they actually don't care whether source is 'Open' or 'Closed'.

They only care when something has made their life harder, like raising a justifcation case for a software purchase ... up until then code came from PlanetSourceCode. Suddenly when something is illogical it's a ball-ache and must be stopped.

Microsoft's Bill Gates was quoted many time saying the 'right thing' i.e. 'legal' thing, 'keep share-holder happy' thing, 'look I have an opinion' thing, 'Geez I'm a thought leader' thing. When he didn't work out whether it was the 'Smart Thing' to say.

Just like Sir Freddy Goodwin, Bill became the focus of attention for what is generally a bad situation. He became a focal point to direct the hate at. At last there is an enemy! ... and a good story isn't a good story without a bunch of heros and villans.

The simple fact is that other companies like IBM & Oracle who are arguably just as big realised that Bill had shot himself, and his company, in the foot ... and stoked the fire to get some more market share using the Open Source movement and Linux as patsies.
Up until then Oracle and IBM did not have any core products as Open Source ... and you can argue that this is still the case.

Forward-wind to present day and Microsoft is making friends in Open Source and the Linux communities, striking deals and giving money away as well as code. Not repairing the damage but not so much the bad guy after all.

So what I don't get is ... why don't you fire your guns at Oracle or IBM????? ... because their stuff runs on Linux? Oracle's main OS is Oracle Enterprise Linux and Windows, so not bad .... but IBM's main OS is still AIX or zOS !!! Stuff is ported to Linux!

I think that Microsoft is upfront about where it stands. I'm not sure the same can be said elsewhere.

The point I want to make is - life is more complex than heros and villians.

**********************************************

Anyway, here endith the lesson from old man Sabot. This thread has turned into topics best discussed over beer, so when your next in the London, UK, ping me and you can come out with my Open and Closed source loving friends and enjoy the debate over Kingfisher
and Curry. So I'm done with this thread.

Sabot: Are you sure this was supposed to be directed at me? I'm all for recognizing the validity of the concept of patents, even while I recognize the atrocious way they've been handled. Regardless, I'd happily go for beer and vindaloo next time I'm
in London, whenever that may be. ]]>http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/686c7bfb29e84e598b7d9deb00ce43d5#686c7bfb29e84e598b7d9deb00ce43d5
Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:49:04 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/458939-Microsoft-goes-nuclear-against-Linux/686c7bfb29e84e598b7d9deb00ce43d5#686c7bfb29e84e598b7d9deb00ce43d5Yggdrasil31http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Yggdrasil/Discussions/RSSCoffeehouse - Microsoft goes nuclear against Linux

Bass said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

I don't know why you keep making this to an open source versus close source thing. Bill Gates, the founder of the BIGGEST proprietary software company in the world has spoken out against software patents. Do you really think Bill Gates is an open source fan?

Software patents hurt software. It hurts closed source software. It hurts open source software. It might even hurt closed source software more then open source, if you look at history and by the companies most hurt by software patents. So stop bringing your
ideology about open source into it. It has nothing to do with the issue. Software patents make all forms of software riskier to write. And if you make software development a legally challenging practice, less software will get written. Less software means
less jobs and our industry will suffer in the end.

Bass: You throw very strong rhetoric around, like "Software patents hurt software". You'll have to back it up with a bit more than just "they make it riskier, so less software is written". I can (and did, actually) bring
the counter-claim that without patent protection, spending the time and money to write code is like throwing your efforts into the wind, putting them up for grabs. In a scenario where you have no legal protection for your inventions, less software will be
written because it's not economical to do so.

Do you have a good solution for this problem, one that doesn't require patents? Or maybe you don't think it's a problem at all? I'd love to hear some defense for the anti-patent approach, from you or k2t0f12d,
rather than just rejecting them categorically.

Nothing about open source. Nothing about cooperation and integration. Just the value of patents.